| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
 Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:22 pm |
|
|
| Chief Joseph wrote: | | His constitutional right to free speech was violated. |
No, not true. Not even close. The First Amendment guaranties apply only to state action, not to the actions of private parties. Furthermore, nobody is suggesting that Sterling be muzzled from saying anything.
Also, are you confusing the right of free speech with the right to privacy? A right to privacy is not expressed in the Constitution, although some SCOTUS opinions have found a right to privacy in the Constitution by implication, e.g., Roe v. Wade. BTW, the judges who authored those opinions have been attacked by the right to have engaged in "judicial activism."
Anyway, the right to privacy found by implication in the Constitution applies to state action, not to private action, and thus has no application here.
| Chief Joseph wrote: | | The Constitution/Bill of Rights addresses many issues, among those are some issues of privacy, freedom of speech, illegal search etc. |
Yes, sort of, but those guaranties have nothing to do with this case. Re freedom of speech and right to privacy, see above. Re illegal searches, the Fourt Amendment (and extension of 4th Amendment rights via the 14th amendment) apply to state action, not to actions of private parties, and thus has no application here.
ETA: It appears that a CA code requires both parties to consent to recording a telephone conversation. First, do you know whether or not Sterling consented? If he did, there was no violation of the statute. Second, if it is established that he did not consent, then his bimbo GF may have violated that statute and Sterling might have a civil claim against her. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Daryl
Big Shot Economist
Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 1817 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Daryl
Big Shot Economist
|
Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:57 pm |
|
|
Also remember that freedoms go both ways. He has the freedom to be a racist and say dumb things. However, the NBA also has the freedom to expel him from their organization.
This lady though, she's scum of the earth too. She'll probably have her own reality show in a few months, or she'll get elected to congress... Either way she'll be a big star and go far.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:38 pm |
|
|
V. Stiviano is to the NBA owners what Bradley/Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden are to the US Governement. Self-serving villian or populust hero depending on one's point of view.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trestle
Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen |
|
trestle
Member
|
Thu May 01, 2014 11:55 am |
|
|
This punishment would never have come down under Stern, the master at sweeping controversy under the carpet. It only came down under Silver because he was facing a league-wide boycott by the players.
There's plenty of bigotry at play on all sides on this one. Makes for good viewing. 
As for Stiviano, what person of any racial background other than white would ever lay with this guy? Her intentions seem very clear as his feelings on the matter have been evident for decades. Total pro move.
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
